Purvish M. Parikh

Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P <or= .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer)

BACKGROUND This placebo-controlled phase III study investigated the effect on survival of gefitinib as second-line or third-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned in a ratio of two to one either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival in the overall population of patients and those with adenocarcinoma. The primary analysis of the population for survival was by intention to treat. This study has been submitted for registration with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 1839IL/709. FINDINGS 1129 patients were assigned gefitinib and 563 placebo. At median follow-up of 7.2 months, median survival did not differ significantly between the groups in the overall population (5.6 months for gefitinib and 5.1 months for placebo; hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.02], p=0.087) or among the 812 patients with adenocarcinoma (6.3 months vs 5.4 months; 0.84 [0.68-1.03], p=0.089). Preplanned subgroup analyses showed significantly longer survival in the gefitinib group than the placebo group for never-smokers (n=375; 0.67 [0.49-0.92], p=0.012; median survival 8.9 vs 6.1 months) and patients of Asian origin (n=342; 0.66 [0.48-0.91], p=0.01; median survival 9.5 vs 5.5 months). Gefitinib was well tolerated, as in previous studies. INTERPRETATION Treatment with gefitinib was not associated with significant improvement in survival in either coprimary population. There was pronounced heterogeneity in survival outcomes between groups of patients, with some evidence of benefit among never-smokers and patients of Asian origin.

Challenges to effective cancer control in China, India, and Russia

Cancer is one of the major non-communicable diseases posing a threat to world health. Unfortunately, improvements in socioeconomic conditions are usually associated with increased cancer incidence. In this Commission, we focus on China, India, and Russia, which share rapidly rising cancer incidence and have cancer mortality rates that are nearly twice as high as in the UK or the USA, vast geographies, growing economies, ageing populations, increasingly westernised lifestyles, relatively disenfranchised subpopulations, serious contamination of the environment, and uncontrolled cancer-causing communicable infections. We describe the overall state of health and cancer control in each country and additional specific issues for consideration: for China, access to care, contamination of the environment, and cancer fatalism and traditional medicine; for India, affordability of care, provision of adequate health personnel, and sociocultural barriers to cancer control; and for Russia, monitoring of the burden of cancer, societal attitudes towards cancer prevention, effects of inequitable treatment and access to medicine, and a need for improved international engagement.

Gefitinib (IRESSA) in Patients of Asian Origin with Refractory Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Subset Analysis from the ISEL Study

Introduction: The IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) phase III study compared the efficacy of gefitinib (IRESSA) versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although a statistically significant difference in survival was not seen between gefitinib and placebo in the overall ISEL population, preplanned subset analyses demonstrated a significant survival benefit in patients who had never smoked and in patients of Asian origin. Methods: In ISEL, 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy were randomized to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Preplanned subgroup analyses included an assessment of patients who were of Asian origin (n = 342). Results: Two hundred thirty-five patients of Asian origin received gefitinib, and 107 received placebo. In these patients, treatment with gefitinib significantly improved survival compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48, 0.91; p = 0.010; median survival, 9.5 versus 5.5 months). Patients of Asian origin also experienced statistically significant improvements in time to treatment failure with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0084; 4.4 versus 2.2 months), and objective response rates were higher with gefitinib than with placebo (12 versus 2%). Gefitinib was generally well tolerated in patients of Asian origin, with rash and diarrhea being the most common adverse events. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Treatment with gefitinib was associated with a significant improvement in survival in a subgroup of patients of Asian origin with previously treated refractory advanced NSCLC.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study of Single-Agent Oral Talactoferrin in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer That Progressed After Chemotherapy

PURPOSE To investigate the activity and safety of oral talactoferrin (TLF) in patients with stages IIIB to IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for whom one or two prior lines of systemic anticancer therapy had failed. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 100) were randomly assigned to receive either oral TLF (1.5 g in 15 mL phosphate-based buffer) or placebo (15 mL phosphate-based buffer) twice per day in addition to supportive care. Oral TLF or placebo was administered for a maximum of three 14-week cycles with dosing for 12 consecutive weeks followed by 2 weeks off. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) patient population. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. RESULTS TLF was associated with improvement in OS in the ITT patient population, meeting the protocol-specified level of significance of a one-tailed P = .05. Compared with the placebo group, median OS increased by 65% in the TLF group (3.7 to 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 90% CI, 0.47 to 0.98; P = .04 with one-tailed log-rank test). Supportive trends were also observed for PFS and DCR. TLF was well tolerated and, generally, there were fewer adverse events (AEs) and grade ≥ 3 AEs reported in the TLF arm. AEs were consistent with those expected in late-stage NSCLC. CONCLUSION TLF demonstrated an apparent improvement in OS in patients with stages IIIB to IV NSCLC for whom one or two prior lines of systemic anticancer therapy had failed and was well tolerated. These results should be confirmed in a global phase III trial.

Pulmonary microsporidial infection in a patient with CML undergoing allogeneic marrow transplant

Very few cases of human microsporidial infection have been reported. The advent of AIDS has changed this. There is increasing recognition that microsporidia are important opportunistic pathogens. However, the number of cases reported in the non-HIV population is small. We report here a case of microsporidial infection in a female patient with chronic myeloid leukemia undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. There was also an associated fungal infection. The diagnosis could be reached only after postmortem and was confirmed by electron micrography. We suggest that transplant patients are another group of patients who are susceptible to this group of opportunistic pathogens.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study of Oral Talactoferrin in Combination with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: The aim of the study is to investigate the activity and safety of oral talactoferrin (TLF) plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (C/P) in patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Patients (n = 110) were randomly assigned to receive C/P plus either TLF (C/P/T) or placebo (C/P/P). The primary objective of this exploratory study was assessment of confirmed response rate (RR) in the prospectively defined evaluable population with a one-tailed p = 0.05. Secondary objectives included assessment of progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: The trial met the primary end point of improvement in confirmed RR in the prospectively defined evaluable population. Compared with the C/P/P group, RR increased in the C/P/T group by 18% (29–47%; p = 0.05) and 15% (27–42%; p = 0.08) in the evaluable and intent-to-treat populations, respectively. Compared with the C/P/P group, the C/P/T group had a longer median PFS (4.2 versus 7.0 months), OS (8.5 versus 10.4 months), and duration of response (5.5 versus 7.6 months), although the differences were not statistically significant. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with C/P therapy. There were fewer total AEs (472 versus 569; two-tailed p = 0.003) and grade 3/4 AEs (78 versus 105; p = 0.05) in the C/P/T group compared with the C/P/P group. Conclusion: TLF, in combination with C/P, demonstrated an apparent improvement in RR, PFS, and OS in patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer and appears to enhance activity without significant additional toxicity. These results need to be confirmed in a phase III trial.

Radical radiotherapy with concurrent weekly cisplatin in loco-regionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a single-institution experience.

BackgroundThe dominant pattern of failure for squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck remains loco-regional, although distant metastases are now being increasingly documented. Radical radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy is contemporary standard of care in the non-surgical management of these loco-regionally advanced cancers, based on large randomized controlled trials utilizing high-dose cisplatin (80–100 mg/m2) cycled every three-weekly during definitive radiotherapy. Although efficacious, this is associated with high acute morbidity necessitating intensive supportive care with attendant resource implications. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the efficacy and acute toxicity of an alternative schedule i.e. concurrent weekly cisplatin-based radical radiotherapy and its potential to be an optimal regimen in advanced head and neck cancers.MethodsOutcome data of patients with Stage III & IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, excluding nasopharynx, planned for radical radiotherapy (66–70 Gy) with concurrent weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2) treated in a single unit between 1996–2004 was extracted.ResultsThe dataset consisted of 264 patients with a median age of 54 years. The median radiotherapy dose was 70 Gy (range 7.2–72 Gy) and median number of chemotherapy cycles was 6 (range 1–7). Two-thirds (65%) of patients received ≥85% of planned cisplatin dose. With a mean follow-up of 19 months, the 5-year local control; loco-regional control; and disease free survival was 57%; 46%; and 43% respectively. Acute grade 3 or worse mucositis and dermatitis was seen in 77 (29%) and 92 (35%) patients respectively, essentially in patients receiving doses ≥66 Gy and 6 or more cycles of chemotherapy. Other toxicities (hematologic, nausea and vomiting) were mild and self-limiting. Overall, the acute toxicity of this concurrent weekly chemo-radiation regimen though mildly increased did not mandate intensive supportive care. Stage grouping, primary site, and intensity of treatment were significant predictors of loco-regional control and disease free survival.ConclusionRadical radiotherapy with concurrent weekly cisplatin has moderate efficacy and acceptable acute toxicity with potential to be an optimal regimen in loco-regionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, particularly in limited-resource settings. Stage grouping, primary site, and treatment intensity are important determinants of outcome.

Use of a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic transplantation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia

Summary:Reduced-intensity conditioning that harnesses the potential of a graft-versus-tumor (GVT) effect has been proposed as an alternative to conventional myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The primary aim is engraftment and this can be achieved with minimal immunosuppression. In this report, we describe the use of such regimens for CML in 17 patients who received human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched sibling allografts. Conditioning was with fludarabine, antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and busulfan for the first 11 patients, whereas fludarabine, busulfan and TBI were used for the remaining six patients. Engraftment was prompt in most of the cases. Complications and need for supportive therapy in the immediate post-transplant period were reduced drastically. Only two patients (both in the TBI group) died within the first 100 days. Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grade II–IV was seen in seven patients. Complications occurred later on. Chronic GVHD was observed in 11/17 patients. Lung infection and GVHD were the major killers. In surviving patients, after a median follow-up of 30 months (range 37–21 months), 6/17 (35.3%) are alive. Five are disease free and one patient is still in relapse even after a second donor lymphocyte infusion. Total treatment time and cost were more than with conventional transplants. We conclude that reduced-intensity transplantation still requires further refinement.

Phase 2 study of subcutaneous omacetaxine mepesuccinate for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients resistant to or intolerant of tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Omacetaxine mepesuccinate (omacetaxine) is a first‐in‐class cephalotaxine with a unique mode of action, independent of BCR‐ABL, that has shown promising activity in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). This multicenter, noncomparative, open‐label phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous omacetaxine in CML patients with resistance or intolerance to two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); results in patients in chronic phase are reported here. Patients received subcutaneous omacetaxine 1.25 mg/m2 twice daily days 1–14 every 28 days until hematologic response (up to a maximum of six cycles), then days 1–7 every 28 days as maintenance. Primary endpoints were rates of hematologic response lasting >8 weeks and major cytogenetic response (MCyR). Forty‐six patients were enrolled: all had received imatinib, 83% had received dasatinib, and 57% nilotinib. A median 4.5 cycles of omacetaxine were administered (range, 1–36). Hematologic response was achieved or maintained in 31 patients (67%); median response duration was 7.0 months. Ten patients (22%) achieved MCyR, including 2 (4%) complete cytogenetic responses. Median progression‐free survival was 7.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.9–8.9 months], and overall survival was 30.1 months (95% CI, 20.3 months—not reached). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity included thrombocytopenia (54%), neutropenia (48%), and anemia (33%). Nonhematologic adverse events were predominantly grade 1/2 and included diarrhea (44%), nausea (30%), fatigue (24%), pyrexia (20%), headache (20%), and asthenia (20%). Subcutaneous omacetaxine may offer clinical benefit to patients with chronic‐phase CML with resistance or intolerance to multiple TKI therapies. Am. J. Hematol. 88:350–354, 2013.